Civic Responsibility
ON OUR CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THE COMMON GOOD
P A S T O R A L L E T T E R
A PASTORAL LETTER TO CHRIST’S FAITHFUL
OF
THE ARCHDIOCESE OF
THE MOST REVEREND RAYMOND L. BURKE
ARCHBISHOP OF
October 1, 2004
Introduction
(Bold emphasis provided by Holy Hill Cross Web Site)
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
1. IN THE SUMMER OF 1982,
I spent two months in
2.
One day, the sacristan opened his heart about the evils of
Naziism. He was in his late teen years at the time of the rise of the Third
Reich. The question which haunted him was how the people of his nation, how he,
could have permitted such horrible evils to happen at all or to go on for so
long. Some months ago, our conversation came to mind when another native of
Germany, who grew up during the Third Reich, commented to me on the accusation,
made against a number of the Catholic Bishops of Germany of the time, of not
having done enough to teach against the evils of Naziism.
3.
These conversations, filled with much emotion, often return to my
mind and lead me to reflect upon the responsibility which belongs to every
citizen of a nation to safeguard and promote the common good. I think how much
weightier the individual responsibility for the common good is in a democratic
republic like our own nation, in which we elect the officials of our
government. As a Bishop, I think of the tremendous responsibility, which is
mine, to teach clearly the moral law to all
the faithful, so that, in turn, we all have
a clear understanding of our civic responsibility for the common good.
4.
As your Archbishop, I write to you now regarding the fulfillment
of our civic responsibility for the common good, especially by exercising our
right and fulfilling our duty to vote, in order to choose those representatives
who will best serve the common good in government.
~I am “my
brother’s keeper” ~
5. IN REFLECTING UPON
the sacristan’s question, I call to mind the
story of Cain and Abel from the
Book of Genesis
(Gn
4:1-16). After Cain had killed his brother
Abel, our Lord came to him and inquired concerning the whereabouts of Abel.
Cain replied: “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gn
4:9).
6.
Christ has supplied the definitive answer to Cain’s question in
the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk
7.
The sacristan in
8.
Concerning the moral responsibility of voting, I, as the successor
to the Apostles in your midst, write to present the Church’s teaching regarding
our civic responsibility to promote the common good, above all by promoting the
respect for the inviolable dignity of all human life. Through a clear
understanding of the Church’s teaching, we should all be better prepared to
exercise our responsibility, in accord with the Word of Christ, handed down to
us faithfully in the Church. Our
civic responsibility for the common good is
great, especially in a society which fails to afford legal protection to the
weakest and most defenseless. My responsibility, therefore, is likewise great
to teach the moral law, in order to assist us in fulfilling our civic
responsibility for the good of all.
~Bond of
divine charity~
9. OUR CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY
to protect the common good is informed,
first and foremost, by our life in Christ. We come to life in Christ through
Baptism. From the moment of our baptism,
the Holy Spirit begins to dwell within our soul. Through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we
truly live each day in Christ. Through
the Sacrament of Confirmation, God strengthens and increases the life of the
Holy Spirit within us, in order that we may carry out more faithfully Christ’s
mission in the world, the mission of divine charity, of love of neighbor
without boundaries. Through the Sacrament of Penance, God the Father receives
the confession of our sins and forgives us, giving us grace to live more
faithfully in Christ. Most wonderfully of all, God heals and strengthens us for
the challenges of our daily life in Christ, our daily carrying out of Christ’s
mission, through our participation in the Holy Eucharist, in which He gives us
the Heavenly Medicine and Food which
is the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity
of Christ, His Incarnate Son.
10.
Christ’s life within us unites us in the bond of divine charity
with all who have been sanctified by His grace, and directs us to love every
human being as He has loved us (cf.
Jn
11.
Christ poured out His life on
“Truly, I say to you, as you
did it to one of the least of these
my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt
25:40).
One with Him, most perfectly in the
Eucharistic Sacrifice, we are also one with Him in His care for the world,
especially for our brothers and sisters who depend upon us, who are in need.
The teaching of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council expresses eloquently
Christ’s care for the
world, His solidarity with all people of
every time and place, and our real participation in that care and solidarity:
The joy and hope, the grief and anguish of
the men of our time, especially of those who are poor or afflicted in any way,
are the joy and hope, the grief and anguish of the followers of Christ as well.
Nothing that is genuinely human fails to find an echo in their hearts. For
theirs is a community composed of men, of men who, united in Christ and guided
by the Holy Spirit, press onwards towards the kingdom of the Father and are
bearers of a message of salvation intended for all men. That is why Christians
cherish a feeling of deep solidarity with the human race and its history.
(Second
Vatican EcumenicalCouncil, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,
Gaudium et spes,
December
7, 1965, n. 1).
As followers of Christ, it is our joyful
obligation to make of ourselves, by God’s grace, instruments of divine charity,
of God’s love for all men and women, without boundaries.
~Citizens of Heaven and earth~
12. THROUGH THE OUTPOURING
of the Holy Spirit into our lives, we have
become citizens of Heaven, heirs to the eternal life which Christ has won for
us by His Passion, Death and Resurrection. Citizens of Heaven, we remain
citizens of earth and of the particular nation in which we live. In fact, our
heavenly citizenship requires our imitation of Christ Who “came not to be
served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk
13.
As citizens of both Heaven and earth, we are bound by the moral
law to act with respect for the rights of others and to promote the common
good. The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council makes clear the responsibilities
which are ours as citizens of the City of
The Council exhorts Christians, as citizens
of both cities, to perform their duties faithfully in the spirit of the Gospel.
It is a mistake to think that, because we have here no lasting city, but seek
the city which is to come, we are entitled to shirk our earthly responsibilities;
this is to forget that by our faith we are bound all the more to fulfill these
responsibilities according to the vocation of each one. But it is no less
mistaken to think that we may immerse ourselves in earthly activities as if
these latter were utterly foreign to religion, and religion were nothing more
than the fulfillment of acts of worship and the observance of a few moral
obligations.
One
of the graver errors of our time is the dichotomy between the faith which many profess and the practice of their daily
lives.
As far back as the Old Testament the
prophets vehemently denounced this scandal, and
in the New Testament Christ Himself with greater force threatened it
with severe punishment. Let there, then,
be no such pernicious opposition between professional and social activity on
the one hand and religious life on the other. The Christian who shirks his
temporal duties shirks his duties towards his neighbor, neglects God Himself,
and endangers his eternal salvation (Gaudium et spes,
n. 43a).
Our heavenly citizenship adds the grace of
Christ to the duty of our earthly citizenship,
which is to preserve, safeguard and foster the common good. As citizens
of Heaven, we have the grace of the divine charity of The Good Samaritan to
inspire and strengthen us in loving all,
without boundaries.
14.
The secularism of our culture, with its tendency to an exaggerated
individualism, can easily cause confusion regarding the relationship of our
duties as Christians and citizens, as citizens of Heaven and citizens of earth.
We
can easily begin to view our Christian duty as a private matter without
legitimate reference to our civic duty.
The Word of Christ, however, calls us to the constant b conversion of
our lives, by which we overcome any
selfish individualism and live truly in Christ for love of God and our
neighbor, also in fulfilling our civic responsibility.
~Conscience, our guide in divine charity~
15. GOD WHO HAS MADE US
in His own image and likeness, making us His
co-workers in the care of the world (Gn
Conscience
is the voice of God within us, assisting us to choose good and to avoid evil,
in accord with God’s law. Our conscience helps us to choose what is true and
not to fall prey to self-deception, the deception of others and Satan’s
deception, all of which would lead us to betray the truth about ourselves and
our world. It is our conscience which leads us to choose a particular action,
which judges the goodness or evil of the action as we carry it out, and helps
us to assess the goodness or evil of the action, once it has been done. (Catechism of the Catholic Church,
nn. 1777-1778)
16.
Because of the sacred nature of conscience, we must enjoy the
right to act in accord with what our conscience dictates. We must be free to
make a personal decision to do what is good and to avoid what is evil.
The
right to act in accord with our conscience, however, presupposes that our
conscience is informed with the truth which God has inscribed in our heart and
revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures.
We are obliged to inform our conscience with
the knowledge of God’s law, both the natural law inscribed in our hearts and
the law revealed in God’s Word taught with authority by the Church (Catechism of the Catholic Church,
nn. 1783-1785).
17.
To the degree that our conscience is not informed by the divine
truth, to that degree our conscience is liable to an erroneous judgment. There
are times when we make a wrong moral judgment because of ignorance of the
truth. Sometimes, we are responsible for the ignorance because we have failed
to seek out the truth or have dulled our conscience through repeated sin.
Sometimes, we are not responsible for our ignorance. In any case, it is always
our responsibility to inform our conscience with the truth, especially with the
help of our teachers in the faith, the Holy Father, the Bishops in communion
with the Holy Father, and our priests, co-workers with the Bishops (Catechism of the Catholic Church,
nn. 1790-1794).
The
Catechism
of the Catholic Church
summarizes well for us the means of forming
a good conscience:
In
the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must
assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also
examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of
the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the
authoritative teaching of the Church. (n. 1785).
As Archbishop, I write to you now, in order
to assist you in reflecting upon the Word of God and to know the authoritative
teaching of the Church regarding the complex moral questions which our nation
faces and which we all face in electing the leaders of our nation. I write now
to assist you in informing your conscience as fully as possible, regarding your
responsibilities as a citizen. I do not claim to be wise and can offer no
wisdom of my own. What I give you is the wisdom of the Church,
the wisdom of Christ.
~Common good and human life~
18. WE ARE MORALLY BOUND
in
conscience to choose leaders at all levels of government, who will best serve the
common good, “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as
groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more
easily”
(Gaudium et spes,
n. 26a).
“The sum total of social conditions” embraces a wide spectrum of concerns which
the Catholic voter must have before his or her eyes, for example, safeguarding
the right to life and the sanctity of marriage and the family; securing
domestic and international peace; promoting education and public safety;
assisting those suffering from poverty; providing sufficient and safe food,
healthcare and adequate housing; eliminating racism and other forms of
injustice; and fostering justice in the work place.
19.
The “fulfillment” which the common good helps us to attain is not self-fulfillment
in the popular sense. It is, rather, the fulfillment of God’s plan and destiny
for us and our world. It is the
fulfillment of our high calling as sons and daughters of God in God the Son,
co-workers with God in His care of the world and of our brothers and sisters.
20.
In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is,
however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon
which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first
consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without
which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable
right to life of every innocent human individual is a
constitutive element of a civil society and
its legislation”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church,
n. 2273).
21.
The safeguarding of
human life is understandably foundational to all other precepts of the natural
law.
The Church’s teaching, from her very first
years, has underlined the particular gravity of taking the life of another,
made in the image and likeness of God, except in the case of self-defense, that
is, the legitimate defense of self or others (cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical
Letter
Evangelium vitae,
“On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life,”
March 25, 1995, nn. 52-55).
22.
Within the considerations for the protection of human life, the
protection of the life of the innocent and defenseless, and of the weak and the
burdened must have primacy of place. There can never be justification for directly
and deliberately taking the life of those who indeed are “the least” (Mt
25:45). Such an act is always evil in itself, intrinsically evil.
Society, rather, is called to treasure its members who are weakest, in the eyes
of the world.
23.
For that reason, our Holy Father reminds us that “among all the
crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has
characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable” (Evangelium vitae,
n. 58a). In treating the evil of procured
abortion, our Holy Father concludes:
“No
circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is
intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written
in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church” (Evangelium vitae,
n. 62d).
24.
The Church’s teaching
on the intrinsic evil of procured abortion forbids the destruction of human
beings from the moment of fertilization through every stage of their
development. It is intrinsically evil to destroy human embryos, even for some
intended good.
Our Holy Father, referring to the Church’s
perennial teaching on the respect for human life, reminds us:
“This
evaluation of the morality of abortion is to be applied also to the recent
forms of
intervention on human embryos
which,
although carried out for purposes legitimate in themselves, inevitably involve
the killing of those embryos. This is the case with
experimentation on embryos,
which is becoming
increasingly widespread in the field of biomedical research and is legally
permitted in some countries….It must nonetheless be stated that the use of
human embryos or fetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime
against
their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a
child once born, just as to every person” (Evangelium vitae,
n. 63a).
The Holy Father further reminds us that the
solemn duty to protect human life
extends also to:
“living
human embryos and fetuses sometimes specifically ‘produced’ for this purpose by
in vitro
fertilization either to be used as
‘biological material’ or as
providers of organs or tissue for
transplants
in the treatment of certain diseases”
(Evangelium vitae,
n. 63b).
25.
Another intrinsic moral evil which seemingly is growing in acceptability
in our society is euthanasia:
“an
action or omission which, of itself or by intention,causes death in order to
eliminate suffering” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2277).
Our
thoroughly secularized society fails to understand the redemptive meaning of
human suffering, while, at the same time, it views a human life burdened by
advanced years, serious illness or specials needs as unworthy and too
burdensome to sustain. The secularist response contradicts totally the response
of Christ— and the response of the Church throughout the Christian
centuries—Who treasures, above all, our brothers and sisters in most need and
Who is the sign of God’s merciful love to them.
26.
It is important to distinguish
euthanasia from: 1) the legitimate decision “to forego…medical procedures
which no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient, either because
they are by now disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose
an excessive burden on the patient and his family”; and 2) the legitimate
decision to use “various types of painkillers and sedatives for relieving the
patient’s pain when this involves risk of shortening life” (Evangelium vitae,
n. 65b-c).
Euthanasia,
however, as our Holy Father has confirmed, is a grave violation of the natural
and divine law, “since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of
a human person” (Evangelium vitae,
n. 65d).
27.
Another moral concern of our time touches both upon the
inviolability of human life and upon the sanctity of marriage and the family,
in which human life has its beginning and receives its first and most important
education.
The
attempt to generate human life “without any connection with sexuality through
‘twin fission,’cloning, or parthenogenesis” is a grave violation of the moral
law.
(Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its
Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the
Day,”
Donum
vitae,
February 22, 1987, I, n. 6).
Human
cloning, for any reason, is “in opposition
to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union”
(Donum vitae,I,
n. 6), inasmuch as it reduces
procreation to a species of manufacture,
and treats human life as a product of
human artifice. So-called “reproductive cloning” is immoral on these grounds, as is what is euphemistically referred
to as “therapeutic cloning.” The
latter also involves the actual destruction of cloned human beings.
28.
Another moral concern
touching upon marriage and the family, which is of particular urgency in our
time, is the movement to recognize legally as a marriage a relationship between
two persons of the same sex. Such legal recognition of a “samesex” relationship
undermines the truth about marriage, revealed in the natural law and the Holy
Scriptures, namely that it is an exclusive and lifelong union of one man and
one woman, which of its very nature cooperates with God in the creation of new
human life.
(cf.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Considerations Regarding Proposals
to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,”
Likewise,
the legal recognition of a homosexual relationship
as marriage redounds to the grave harm of the individuals involved, for it sanctions and even encourages
gravely immoral acts.
29.
Among the many “social conditions” which the Catholic must take
into account in voting, the above serious moral issues must be given the first
consideration.
The
Catholic voter must seek, above every other consideration, to protect the
common good by opposing these practices which attack its very foundations.
Thus, in weighing all of the social
conditions which pertain to the common good, we must safeguard, before all
else, the good of human life and the good of marriage and the family.
30.
Some Catholics have suggested that a candidate’s position on the
death penalty and war are as important as his or her position on procured
abortion and same-sex “marriage.” This,
however, is not true. Procured abortion and homosexual acts are
intrinsically evil, and, as such, can never be justified in any circumstance.
Although war and capital punishment can rarely be justified, they are not
intrinsically evil; neither practice includes the direct intention of killing
innocent human
beings. In some circumstances, self-defense
and defense of the nation are not only rights, but responsibilities.
Neither
individuals nor governments can be denied the right of lawful defense in
appropriate circumstances.
(cf.
Catechism of the
Catholic
Church,
nn. 2265 and 2309).
We must stop the killing of innocent unborn
children and the practice of euthanasia, and safeguard marriage and the family
now. One cannot justify a vote for a
candidate who promotes intrinsically evil acts which erode the very foundation
of the common good, such as abortion and same-sex “marriage,” by appealing to
that same candidate’s opposition to war or capital punishment.
31.
Some Catholics, too, have suggested that a candidate’s position on
other issues involving human rights are as important as his or her position on
the right to life. Our Holy Father Pope John Paul II has reminded us that, in
order to defend all human rights, we must first defend the right to life:
“The
inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability
of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the
inviolability
of human life.
Above
all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for
example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false
and illusory if
the right to life,
the
most basic
and
fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not
defended
with maximum determination”
(Pope
John Paul II, Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation
Christifideles laici,
“On
the Vocation and the
of
the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the Modern World,”
In all of our considerations of candidates
and their positions, the safeguarding of the inviolability of human life, in
all stages of development, must be kept before our eyes.
~Voting
and the common good~
32. CONSIDERING ALL
of the necessary social conditions to
provide for the common good, among which the concerns regarding human life, and
marriage and the family must have the first place, what guidance does the
Church’s teaching offer for the prudential decision of the Catholic in voting?
What help does the Church’s teaching offer to the Catholic voter who must
consider the positions of each candidate for office to see which candidate, in
his or her prudent judgment, will best
promote the common good?
33.
First of all, the
Church teaches that we have an obligation, in justice, to vote, because the
welfare of the community depends upon the persons elected and appointed to
office. Secondly, we are morally obliged to vote for a worthy candidate.
Depending on the importance of the office
which the candidate seeks, careful consideration
must be given to the principles and positions for which he or she stands. The
Baltimore Catechism
gives a good summary of the Church’s
teaching regarding the duty to vote,
in its response to:
Question
246, “How does a citizen show a sincere interest in his country’s welfare?”:
(a)
Citizens should exercise the right to vote. This is a moral obligation when the
common good of the state or the good of religion, especially in serious
matters, can be promoted.
(b)
Citizens should vote for the candidates who in their judgment are best
qualified to discharge the duties of public office. Mere personal gain or
friendship does not justify one’s voting for a candidate. It would be sinful to
cast a ballot for one who, in the judgment of the voters, would do grave public
harm.
(Rev.
Francis J. Connell, C.Ss.R., ed.,
The New Confraternity Edition: Revised Baltimore Catechism and
Mass,
No. 3, New York: Benziger
Brothers, 1949, p. 145).
The
Catechism of the Catholic Church,
in more summary fashion, reminds us:
“Submission
to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally
obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s
country” (n. 2240).
34.
If all candidates uphold the moral law in its integrity,
especially with regard to the intrinsically evil acts considered above (nn.
21-29), then it is a question of voting for the candidate on the basis of his
or her character, ability to lead, record and practical plans for attaining
goods proposed. As Archbishop, I have no special competence in judging these
more practical and technical questions about a candidate. After a study of the
issues and with the help of civic discussion, a voter is prepared to make the
prudential judgment about the most worthy candidate for each position.
35.
If one candidate alone upholds the moral law in its integrity,
then the decision to vote for him or her is clear. But, what does a Catholic
do, if no candidate upholds the moral law in its integrity, that is, if all
candidates hold some position which is in opposition to the moral law, as is so
often the case in today’s society? When all candidates for a particular office
fail, in some regard, to support the moral law and thus foster the common good
in its entirety, some Catholics simply decide
not to vote at all.
The
decision not to vote at all, however, fails to take responsibility for any
advancement of the common good, even if limited by some false positions taken
by a candidate.
~Voting as
material and formal cooperation in another’s sin~
36. BEYOND THE CATHOLIC VOTER’S
RESPONSIBILITY
to vote for a worthy
candidate, some particular cases can involve other very serious moral
considerations. Candidates and their parties, at times, advocate social
policies and programs which are themselves gravely immoral or they endorse laws
which permit intrinsically evil actions which are gravely unjust.
The
question arises, then: Is a choice to vote for a candidate who actively promotes grave injustices always sinful?
37.
Certainly, it is never
right to vote for a candidate in order to promote the immoral practices he or
she endorses and supports. In such a case, the voter, who assists the candidate
in fulfilling his or her agenda by getting into office, intends the same evil
endorsed and promoted by the candidate. According to Catholic moral teaching,
assisting another to achieve evil in this fashion is called formal cooperation,
which is never morally permissible.
38.
The Church, however, also recognizes that it is sometimes
impossible to avoid all cooperation with evil, as may well be true in selecting
a candidate for public office. In certain circumstances, it is morally
permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral
practices while opposing other immoral practices. Catholic moral teaching
refers to actions of this sort as material cooperation, which is morally
permissible when certain conditions are met. With respect to the question of voting,
these conditions include the following: 1) there is no viable candidate who
supports the moral law in its full integrity; 2) the voter opposes the immoral
practices espoused by the candidate, and votes for the candidate only because
of his or her promotion of morally good practices; and 3) the voter avoids
giving scandal by telling anyone, who may know for whom he or she has voted,
that he or she did so to advance the morally good practices the candidate
supports, while remaining opposed to the immoral practices the candidate
endorses and promotes.
39.
But, there is no
element of the common good, no morally good practice, that a candidate may
promote and to which a voter may be dedicated, which could justify voting for a
candidate who also endorses and supports the deliberate killing of the
innocent, abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia, human cloning or
the recognition of a same-sex relationship as legal marriage. These elements
are so fundamental to the common good that they cannot be subordinated to any
other cause, no matter how good.
40.
When considering the deliberate killing of the innocent human
being, it is helpful to remember the Golden Rule which applies in every moral
decision:
“Whatever
you wish that men would do to you, do so to them”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church,
n. 1789).
In terms of the Golden Rule, we must ask ourselves whether it is fair to
our unborn brothers and sisters to help put someone in office who will not lift
a finger to save their lives because we favor that candidate’s position on
healthcare reform, education, the death penalty or some other issue. If
we were in their stage of human development,
would we want them to make such a decision regarding us? The question is not
peculiarly Catholic but derives from the natural moral law.
~Candidates
who support immoral legislation~
41. A CATHOLIC MAY VOTE
for a candidate who, while he supports an
evil action, also supports the limitation of the evil involved, if there is no
better candidate. For example, a
candidate may support procured abortion in a limited number of cases but be
opposed to it otherwise. In such a case, the Catholic who recognizes the
immorality of all procured abortions may rightly vote for this candidate over
another, more unsuitable candidate in an effort to limit the circumstances in
which
procured abortions would be considered
legal.
Here the intention of the
Catholic voter, unable to find a viable candidate who would stop the evil of
procured abortion by making it illegal, is to reduce the number of abortions by
limiting the circumstances in which it is legal. This is not a question of
choosing the lesser evil, but of limiting all the evil one is able to limit at
the time.
42.
In
Evangelium vitae,
our Holy Father provides an example regarding
the voting of a Catholic legislator, which may be helpful, by analogy, in
understanding the action of a Catholic voter. He writes about the legislator
who votes for legislation which limits the moral evil of procured abortion,
even though it does not eliminate it totally. The Holy Father observes:
“When
it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an
elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was
well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at
limiting the
harm
done
by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of
general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit
cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to
limit its evil aspects.” (Evangelium vitae,
n. 73c).
Thus, a Catholic who is clear in his or her
opposition to the moral evil of procured abortion could vote for a candidate
who supports the limitation of the legality of procured abortion, even though
the candidate does not oppose all use of procured abortion, if the other
candidate(s) do not support the limitation of the evil of procured abortion.
Of
course, the end in view for the Catholic must always be the total conformity of
the civil law with the moral law, that is, ultimately the total elimination of
the evil of procured abortion.
43.
In such cases, would it be better not to vote at all? While I
respect very much the sentiments of those who are so discouraged with the
failure of our public leaders to promote the common good that they have decided
not to vote at all, I must point out that:
…the
Catholic who chooses not to vote at all, when there is a viable candidate who
will advance the common good, although not
perfectly, fails to fulfill his or her moral duty, at least, in the limitation of a grave evil in
society.
44.
Clearly, the moral questions surrounding voting are complex for
Catholics, especially in our totally secularized society. The teaching of the
Church regarding our civic responsibility for the common good must be our guide
in making prudent decisions. Only by
prayer and good counsel will a Catholic voter be able to make a prudent decision regarding what best serves
the common good.
~Conclusion~
45. GOD OUR FATHER,
through the inner voice of our conscience,
asks us each day about our brothers and sisters whose lives are being taken
through abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and euthanasia.
Through
our conscience, he asks us, too, about our protection of the sanctity of
marriage
and
the family, in accord with His divine law.
We are our “brother’s keeper.” Our vocation
and mission in life, a true share in the vocation and mission of Christ our
Savior, is to love our neighbor without boundaries. In our democratic republic,
one of the important ways in which we fulfill our civic responsibility for the
common good is by electing government leaders who respect and uphold the moral
law.
46.
We, like the sacristan in Bavaria, must ask ourselves how it is
possible that we have permitted a grave injustice to be perpetrated against an
entire class of human beings by not legally protecting their lives.
How
is it possible that the grave evil of procured abortion has been legal in our
nation for over 31 years, resulting in the deaths of over 40 million unborn
children? How is it possible that so-called “mercy killing” is legal in some
places in our nation? We must ask ourselves how it is
possible
that our nation may make the destruction of human embryos legal. We must ask
ourselves how it is possible for our government to redefine the God-given gift
of marriage, in opposition to the moral law. We must ask ourselves how it is
possible for our nation to consider the legalization of human cloning which
violates the dignity of human life and the sanctity of the marital union.
47.
As Catholics, informed
by the perennial moral teaching of the Church, we bear an especially heavy
burden of responsibility for the attacks on human life and the family in our
society. If all Catholics in our nation, both Catholic voters and Catholic
government leaders, had joined those Catholics and others who upheld and
continue to uphold the moral law, the grave evils which plague our society
would be lessened and eventually eliminated. We cannot remain silent. We have a
most serious obligation to bring the moral law to bear upon our life in
society, so that the good of all will be served.
48.
Recently, a devout Catholic, referring to a discussion over the
current moral crises which our nation faces, which he had with friends at a
social gathering, commented to me: “It is difficult to be a Catholic today.” He
had experienced ridicule for his positions regarding the common good and a most
distasteful attack on the moral authority of the Church and her pastors. Yet,
he acknowledged that he, as a sincere Catholic, had no other alternative than
to defend the teachings of Christ
as held and handed down by the Church.
Let
us all pray for the wisdom and courage to give a full account of the moral law,
taught to us by the Church, to our fellow citizens, and to defend the moral law
for the sake of the good of all our brothers and sisters, especially our
“least” brothers and sisters, with whom our Lord identifies Himself.
49.
In these difficult times for our nation, let us turn to the Mother
of God, Our Lady of Guadalupe who visited our beloved continent in 1531. Her
extraordinary appearances to Saint Juan Diego had, by her own declaration, one
sole good in view. She asked that a sanctuary be built in her honor, in order
that she might show to all the loving mercy of God toward them. Through her
apparitions,
through her maternal love and intercession,
the pagan practice of human sacrifice was ended and a mutual respect between Native
Americans and Europeans was fostered, flowering into the mestiza culture,
making two races and peoples one. Let us beg God, through the intercession of
Our Lady of Guadalupe, that He establish in our hearts a renewed respect for
all human life and help us to end the killing of the innocent and defenseless.
Through the prayers of the Mother of God, may our voting promote respect for
all human life, safeguard the sanctity of marriage and the family, and foster
the good of all.
Through the intercession of Our Lady of
Guadalupe, may God bless you and your homes, and may He bless our nation,
safeguarding the good of all its citizens.
Given at
Child Jesus, Virgin and Doctor of the
Church, in the Year of the Lord 2004.
(Most Rev.) Raymond L.
Burke
Archbishop of
Rev. Monsignor Richard F.
Stika, V.G.
Chancellor
SUMMARY POINTS
The Pastoral Letter of
Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke
ON OUR CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THE COMMON GOOD
1. The Archbishop is impelled to speak to Catholics
and all people of good will in the metropolitan community on Our Civic
Responsibility for the Common Good on account of his
responsibility as a Bishop
to teach clearly the moral law.
2. Scripture teaches definitively that we are our
“brother’s keeper,”
good Samaritans charged to exercise our
civic responsibility to promote the
common
good.
Above all, we must promote and
protect the inviolable dignity of all
human life. We are called to be “Christians Without
Borders,” without boundaries to our love of neighbor.
3. Our civic responsibility to promote the common good
is informed by our
life in Christ,
which unites us in a
bond of charity.
4. As
citizens
of Heaven
and earth we are
bound by the moral law
to act with respect for the rights of others and to
promote the common good.
5. The right to act in accord with
conscience
presupposes that it is
informed with the
truth
God has inscribed in our hearts
and revealed in Sacred
Scripture. Conscience is the
voice of God within us, assisting us to choose
good
and to avoid evil, in accord with God’s law.
6.
We
are
morally bound
in conscience
to choose government leaders
who will serve the common good. The
first priority
of the common good is the
protection of human life,
the
basis of all other social conditions.
There can
never be justification for directly and
deliberately taking innocent
human life:
abortion, destruction of human embryos, euthanasia,
human cloning.
Legal recognition of same-sex relationships
undermines
the truth about marriage and
sanctions gravely immoral acts.
For the sake of the common good we must safeguard
the good of human life and the good of marriage and family life.
The
death penalty
and
war
are
different from procured abortion and same-sex “marriage”, since these latter
acts are intrinsically evil and therefore can never be justified. Although war
and capital punishment care
rarely
be justified, they
are not
intrinsically evil.
7. To insure the common good Catholics have a
responsibility to vote
for a
worthy candidate,
because the welfare of the
community depends upon the persons elected and appointed to office.
8. It is never right to vote for a candidate
in order to promote immoral practices;
this is
“formal cooperation”
in evil. In some circumstances it is morally
permissible for a Catholic to vote for a
candidate who supports some immoral practices
while opposing other immoral practices. This is called
“material cooperation”
and
is
permissible under certain conditions and when it is
impossible to avoid all
cooperation with evil, as may well be true in
selecting a candidate for
public office.
There is
no element of the common good that could justify
voting for a candidate who also endorses, without
restriction or limitation, the deliberate killing of the innocent, abortion,
embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia, human cloning, or same-sex marriage.
9. If a candidate supports abortion in a limited
number of cases, but is opposed otherwise, Catholics may vote for this person.
This is not a question of choosing a lesser evil but of
limiting all the evil
one is able to limit at the time.
10. As Catholics we cannot remain silent. We have a serious obligation to bring the
moral law
to bear upon our life in society, so that the
good of all will be served.